Jones v. Bramwell
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.
There is no serious contention on the paid of the defendants, who are appellants here, that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree, unless the defendants are entitled to have the original deeds reformed because of the alleged mutual mistakes. The only controversy, therefore, is regarding the alleged mistakes in the descriptions in the two original deeds. It is the well-settled law of this state that one desiring to reform a valid contract which has been executed must prove by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence, — (1) that a mistake was made; (2) that the mistake was mutual; and…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Fox v. WindesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Churchill v. MeadeOregon Supreme Court · 1919
- Serles v. SerlesOregon Supreme Court · 1899
- Thomas v. KennedySupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
- Mitchell v. HolmanOregon Supreme Court · 1897
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Wolfgang v. Henry Thiele Catering Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929
- Hilterbrand v. CarterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
- Southeast Portland Lumber Co. v. HeacockOregon Supreme Court · 1929
- Boese v. City of SalemCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979